1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to integrated circuit manufacturing. In particular, the present invention relates to determining values of interconnect process parameters for use in an integrated circuit design to ensure manufacturability and performance.
2. Discussion of the Related Art
Interconnect process parameters are parameters that represent the physical properties of interconnect layers (i.e., conductors used in connecting circuit elements of an integrated circuit) and the intervening insulator layers. Interconnect process parameters include physical dimensions and coefficients of conducting and insulating properties. Typical interconnect process parameters used in designing integrated circuits include thicknesses, widths, and such material properties as sheet resistances of conducting layers (e.g., polysilicon and metal) and permittivities of intervening insulator layers (e.g., silicon dioxides). From measurements of these interconnect process parameters, the electrical properties of conductive traces of an integrated circuit can be individually modeled as resistances, capacitances, and inductances. The resistances, capacitances and inductances can be obtained numerically for any structure manufactured under a manufacturing process using simulation programs, including programs commonly referred to as "field solvers".
A field solver is a computer program which calculates a distribution of an electric field, based on solving the Poisson's equation numerically in two or three dimensions. Thus, a field solver can be used to calculate interconnect electrical properties (e.g., resistances and capacitances) based on a physical model of an interconnect structure. One such field solver, named "Raphael.TM.", is available from Technology Modeling Associates, Sunnyvale, Calif. Alternatively, the "QuickCap.TM." program available from Random Logic Corporation, Fairfax, Va., while strictly speaking not a field solver, can also be used.
In the prior art, field solvers did not play a direct role in determining values of interconnect process parameters. Instead, values of interconnect process parameters are derived from measurements using test structures to designed to allow the values of the interconnect process parameters to be computed using closed-form formulae. Typically, a field solver is used only to check whether the values of these interconnect process parameters obtained from these close-formed formulae correctly predict the electrical properties of structures.
Because the interconnect structures in an integrated circuit design below the half-micron level typically contribute a substantial portion of the signal propagation delays, variations in these interconnect structures can result in significant variations in the electrical properties of the interconnect, and thus significant variations in circuit performance. Thus, interconnect process parameters must be accurately extracted. Alternatively, the physical dimensions of interconnect structures are obtained primarily by measuring, for example, scanning-electron microscope (SEM) micrographs of one or more cross-sections of a fabricated test structure. However, poor instrument calibrations can limit the accuracy of such measurements.
In the prior art, when interconnect structures account for a much smaller portion of the electrical properties of the integrated circuit, interconnect process parameters are measured by process engineers for process monitoring purposes, rather than for obtaining accurate measurements of the electrical properties under various load conditions. Consequently, AC and DC electrical measurements are performed on relatively simple test structures (e.g., the van der Pauw structure can be used to measure conductor and diffusion sheet resistances. Similarly, a parallel-plate capacitor can be used to measure capacitance per unit area). Typically, however, these measurements are used to determine directly the capacitance associated with a particular structure, not to determine values of the underlying interconnect process parameters. For example, a parallel-plate structure can be used to determine the capacitance per unit area of a conductor plate. As another example, a conductor line can be provided over a conductor plate. The capacitance per unit length of the conductor line can be determined from such a structure. However, such simple test structures are unsuitable for modeling local variation effects of electrically conductive traces.
Examples of a resistance measurement and a sheet resistivity measurement are provided here. FIG. 6 shows schematically a four-point Kelvin technique in the prior art for measuring the resistance value of a device 6000 (e.g., a resistor) in an integrated circuit. In FIG. 6, device 6000 is connected to four terminals (pads) 6001-6004. According to the four-point Kelvin technique, a current I is forced through device 6000 via terminals 6001 and 6002, resulting in a voltage difference V1-V2 across device 6000. The voltage difference is measured across the other two terminals 6003 and 6004. The resistance R of device 6000 is provided by: EQU R=(V1-V2)/I.
Sheet resistance .rho. is a convenient measure of resistivity of a conducting layer. In the prior art, to measure resistivity, one form of the four-point Kelvin structure, known as a van der Pauw structure can be used. A van der Pauw structure 800 is shown in FIG. 8. As shown in FIG. 8, test structure 800 includes probe pads 801-804, and a cross-shaped structure 805, which is formed by conductor traces 805a, 805b, 805c and 805d in the conductor layer for which sheet resistance is to be determined. Conductor traces 805a-805d intersect at a square portion 805e. The resistance of square portion 805e is used to determine the sheet resistance of interest. As in the resistance measurement discussed above, a current I is forced across probe pads 804 and 803 in test structure 800, and a voltage difference .DELTA.V=V2-V1 is measured across probe pads 801 and 802. In test structure 800, the sheet resistance .rho. is given by the relation: EQU .rho.=.pi./ln(2)*.DELTA.V/I
However, van der Pauw structures are difficult to use in highly conductive layers, such as aluminum. In highly conductive layers, resistivity .rho. is small. Consequently, the sheet resistance of a square of conductor having this resistivity is also low. As a result, a high current I through the test structure is required to create a measurable voltage difference .DELTA.V. Such a large current can cause a heating effect that affects measurement accuracy and, in some instances, can destroy the test structure.
"Micro-loading" is an effect caused by the local density of conductors within the same conductive layer on each other. Micro-loading, which can result in non-uniformity in conductor widths, occurs in an area of low local conductor density where the etchant is locally depleted due to removal of a large amount of material. Micro-loading results in an under-etching of the conductive layer, i.e., the resulting conductor widths are wider than desired. Conversely, in an area of high local conductor density, an excessive amount of active etchant can remain when only a small amount of conductive material is to be removed. The excess amount of active etchant results in an over-etching of the conductive layer, i.e., resulting conductor widths are narrower than desired.
The non-uniformity resulting from micro-loading, or other mechanisms leading to an under-etch or an over-etch of a conductor, can be characterized by an interconnect process parameter "CD loss." CD loss affects the electrical characteristics (e.g., a resistance or a capacitance) of a conductor. Thus, CD loss is an important design parameter. Test structures such as test structure 800, or similar structures with a square or nearly-square central region, are often used because of relative insensitivity to CD loss. In test structure 800, for example, the square central region 805e maintains a constant aspect ratio of 1:1 despite CD loss, i.e., its width and length are equally reduced by critical dimension loss. Typically, CD losses are in the order of 0.1 micron for a 0.35-micron process.
CD loss can be determined using a conductor trace of a drawn width W, and same-layer parallel conductor traces of the same width W, spaced a distance of S length units apart. Such a test structure 1100 is shown in FIG. 11. In FIG. 11, test structure 1100 is a four-point Kelvin structure which includes portion 11101 of a length L and a width W. Portion 11101 is surrounded by a large number of pairs of neighboring conductor traces which are labeled 11102a, 11102b . . . , placed at spacing S apart. To illustrate, for a 0.35 um technology, Kelvin structure 1100, together with neighboring wires 11102a, 11102b, . . . span a distance of about 40 um on each side (i.e., 30 to 40 neighboring traces on each side). The line-width correction .DELTA.W associated with the CD loss for W and S is provided by the equation: EQU .DELTA.W=W-(L*.rho./R)
where .rho. is the sheet resistivity of the conductor layer. PA1 where C is the measured capacitance, the k.sub.L2-L3 is the associated interlayer dielectric permittivity, .di-elect cons..sub.0 is the permittivity of free space, and A is the surface area of test structure 650 (as viewed from the top).
In the prior art, circuit behaviors (e.g., speed) are not as critically affected by the detailed interconnect structure. Therefore, a test structure for monitoring CD loss typically consists of conductor lines of a single width, provided either at minimal or very large spacings. Thus, the prior art only illuminates how to determine critical dimensions in isolated situations, but provides no general means for characterizing CD loss systematically for the full range of interesting situations.
Another mechanism that brings about non-uniformity is the "proximity effect." For example, planarization techniques using chemical-mechanical polishing techniques can yield thicknesses that vary systematically according to the local conductor density in the conductor layer underlying the interlayer dielectric (ILD) layer. This systematic variation (the "proximity effect") causes a greater interlayer dielectric thickness in a region of higher underlying conductor density than a region of lower conductor density. In addition to the proximity effect, interconnect structures outside a region can also affect uniformity in ILD thicknesses within a region. A non-uniform ILD thickness can affect electrical properties profoundly.
In the prior art, an ILD thickness can be obtained by measuring the capacitance C of a parallel-plate test structure, such as test structure 650 shown in FIG. 2. Test structure 650 is used to determine the ILD thickness above a conductor plate 602 of conductor layer L2. To measure capacitance C, conductor plate 603 of layer L3, and any structures above conductor layer L3, are connect to one probe pad 604 to form a first electrode, and conductor plate 602 of conductor layer L2, and any other conductor structures below conductor layer L2, are connected to another probe pad 605 to form a second electrode. The ILD thickness h.sub.L2-L3 between conductor layers L2 and L3 is the calculated using the equation: EQU C=.di-elect cons..sub.0 *A/(h.sub.L2-L3 /k.sub.L2-L3)